Here's an interesting article on conservatives for Obama from the Daily Beast today. Money quote:

Wick Allison, former publisher of National Review under William F. Buckley and current publisher of The American Conservative, also reaffirms his Obama decision, albeit in anguished lukewarm tones. “I will probably vote for Obama, unless I have aGary Johnson–inspiration in the voting booth. (My vote in Texas is wasted anyway.),” Allison wrote in an email. “Romney is the opposite of conservative, with a plan that is fiscally reckless and a foreign policy that is unnecessarily militant. Obama has done about the best that could have been done, considering the united GOP opposition in Congress. My questions about Obamacare and my disappointment that we are not already out of Afghanistan are not enough to make me embrace a candidacy that even George W. Bush would have been repelled by—and, having had time to reflect on his own record, perhaps is.”

The more I learn about Paul Ryan, the more I really, really dislike the guy. Anyone who is a militant Christian and references Ayn Rand (a devout Atheist) on economic policy isn't going to score many points with me. It's taking the worst of both worlds. On the other hand, I also think Joe Biden is an oaf. The vice-presidency doesn't matter much.

Romney's speech was decent on the surface but lacked... everything, really. I know the RNC isn't the place to lay out policy but I would have liked to hear more than pure rhetoric. I really hate his "Defend America" stance... Who are we defending it from? Why should we continue to funnel money into defense and propping up other governments when our own is doing so badly? We need to see funding slashed across the board and defense shouldn't be exempt from the slash and burn. We need to stop spending more money than we generate and it's going to require a change in taxation, policy, and spending to get there. I don't see Romney doing that but I don't necessarily see Obama doing it, either... But I think that Obama will at least take a shot at it, particularly with a Republican-controlled Congress. At the end of the day, I see Romney as an empty suit who will say whatever it takes to get elected. If only the GOP had pushed harder to nominate Jon Huntsman. No way in hell should Paul Ryan get the "party intellectual" moniker when the party is so callously ignoring Huntsman, who is far smarter and mentally balanced than anyone else I see in the GOP. Much like Obama, the guy exudes level-headedness in a party that is quickly running off the rails.

As for the DNC, I don't know what to expect. I'm sure Biden will say something stupid, Democrats will groan and then laugh, Republicans will feign outrage, and then Obama will take the stage and give his typically vague speech. I want to like Obama but honestly, he's just been more of the same. The only reason I will *probably* vote for him is because he's the less dangerous of the two candidates (I have massive issues with Romney being in bed with the banking and finance industries, who deserve NONE of our trust at this point).

By far my biggest concern about Romney is his foreign policy. I don't care much about a candidate's experience but I do take notice to who he surrounds himself with and who the primary advisors will be. I see no reason to think it will be anything but neo-con on steroids, and no chance Romney would be strong enough to push back against the biggest excesses. I fear where that may ultimately lead, especially if the economy continues to sputter along.

A secondary concern is fiscal policy. There is talk of cutting taxes being balanced by closing loopholes, broadening the tax base and cutting Medicaid/other government spending. This sounds fine in theory but no chance this happens in reality. Once Romney is President little chance he is strong enough to push through tough reforms that will upset large portions of the electorate. So, as usual, we will end up with large tax cuts disproportionately skewed to the wealthy with no cuts in spending to offset them. If you think the deficit looks bad now...

I'm not all that excited for Obama either, but he will at least be relatively moderate to conservative (in the traditional sense) on these two key things that a President actually has control over.

Gary Johnson looks better by the day, here's hoping he gets some legitimate traction (though I'm not counting on it).

I'm pretty sure I'm going to throw my vote away down ballot somewhere this year. I don't like either candidate and in MN it won't matter, Obama will win the state pretty convincingly. On the other hand, the MN ballot does have a couple ballot amendment questions - voter ID and marriage amendment - that people should vote no on.

Yeah, choices like the ones we have in a few months really disillusion me from the entire process.

I've often considered my vote as one of the lesser of two evils. It seems that if you want to vote for the person most 'for' the things you want you are just giving a vote to one you least want. The pitfalls of a two-party system. So I end up voting for the person who is most likely going to beat the one I find most reprehensible.

I'm pretty sure I'm going to throw my vote away down ballot somewhere this year. I don't like either candidate and in MN it won't matter, Obama will win the state pretty convincingly. On the other hand, the MN ballot does have a couple ballot amendment questions - voter ID and marriage amendment - that people should vote no on.

Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

I'd vote gary Johnson over writing in Ron Paul. Write in getting 42,168 instead of 42,167 doesn't really send any message. Gary Johnson getting 1 extra vote sends a clear message. I wrote in Paul in 2008 and didn't think i could possibly vote Romney in January, but this election is about firing Obama for me at this point. I hope Romney has a credible primary challenger in 2016 should he at all resemble the republicans who supported without question the spending of Bush, but at the same time am hopeful Romney has full understanding of our economic situation and is ready to make politically unpopular choices.

I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

I didn't watch it but read the transcript today (with his ad libs), it was a pretty great speech. I read somewhere that with the speech Clinton more or less takes over the position of the elder statesman of the party (from Ted Kennedy). Seems about right.

I was surprised about how gracious Clinton was towards Obama; I thought the speech would be a nostalgic look back at the 90s, but he delivered a pretty compelling and dense argument for reelecting Obama.

I didn't watch it but read the transcript today (with his ad libs), it was a pretty great speech. I read somewhere that with the speech Clinton more or less takes over the position of the elder statesman of the party (from Ted Kennedy). Seems about right.

Clinton's speech was the best I have ever seen. And he masterfully exposed the fundamental incorrectness of most of what the Republicans have been saying about Obama.

This is the choice Mitt says when you lose your $22.50 an hour job you do what it takes and get two jobs to support your family. Obama says people on welfare are not a problem. We can be a country of prideful people or we can continue to live in Obama's America.

The economy is not the income of the citizens, it's the work of the citizens.

This is the choice Mitt says when you lose your $22.50 an hour job you do what it takes and get two jobs to support your family. Obama says people on welfare are not a problem. We can be a country of prideful people or we can continue to live in Obama's America.

The economy is not the income of the citizens, it's the work of the citizens.

Interesting, seeing as during Obama's presidency, numerous welfare-to-work programs were set up to encourage those utilizing welfare to work. What Mitt fails to realize is that many in this country would love half of a $22.50 job, and they're just not out there. Clinton actually made a great point when he was discussing the new education for the new economy. My dad is a bright man and not yet 55, but the education he received would not be adequate if he chose to attempt to enter the workforce now, and many of those being moved out of a position by technological advances are finding the same thing. That is not a bad thing, and it's something this country has faced many times before, but for some reason, now it's being politicized in anti-current regime rhetoric from the Republican party as Obama costing jobs. That's not it at all. In the United States' history, aggressive reorder of the job market based on advances in technology have typically happened because of war or depression/recession times that extend multiple years. We're in the midst of that right now, and as unpopular as it may be for people in the country to be out of work, it needs to happen at times to change how we're training students and adults to do their jobs in an ever-changing global economy.

Vote yes on voter ID, the fact that under the current rules certain people don't have ID's has nothing to do with what would happen if we changed the rule to something reasonable. I have full confidence the 86 year old who has no reason to have an ID would be willing to take 15 minutes out of there day and go register to vote the in a legal manor. The 36 year old that is irresponsible might choose not to get an ID, and thats Ok they have the right to choose not to vote. As for throwing your vote away, you only do that if you let someone else control who you vote for. The election will not come down to 1 vote so all you can do is send a message with your vote. A vote for Rosanne Barr or Gary Johnson sends some sort of a message as does a vote for Obama and Romney. I should add though that an old college professor gave an economic lesson that no matter how close an election is voting is a waste of time. He ran for office 2 years ago and got exactly a half vote more then 50%.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right? That's sorta the opposite of small government. This election year, I'm moving about 3 weeks before election day. Under the voter ID plan, I probably wouldn't be able to vote b/c my "government issued" ID wouldn't have my correct address and ID + a utility bill wouldn't work. (Incidentally, your 36 year old isn't exercising his right not to vote, the government is prohibiting him from voting b/c he didn't fulfill a government created voting requirment. Huge difference)

Minnesotans typically have the highest voter turnout in the country. Last presidential election, over 70% of eligible voters voted. That's remarkable. Over 500,000 of those voters were people who registered to vote on election day. Voter ID will end same day registration as we enjoy it. Instead some sort of provincial balloting method will be created. Voter ID isn't just affecting old people in nursing homes, it'll also affect MN servicemen and women, students, and victims of domestic abuse.

And what would voter ID try and fix? Voter impersonation. Not voter fraud. The only thing voter ID would try and fight change is me attempting to vote in two different locations under two different names. Something that just doesn't happen (and we've been voting without photo IDs for hundreds of years). And to all that, voter ID will require municipalities to raise property taxes to pay for the new voting system - estimates range from 30-50 million.

There's a lot wrong with the voter ID plan but on a simple level, why should 200,000+ people have to go to the government to get back their fundamental right? That's sorta the opposite of small government. This election year, I'm moving about 3 weeks before election day. Under the voter ID plan, I probably wouldn't be able to vote b/c my "government issued" ID wouldn't have my correct address and ID + a utility bill wouldn't work. (Incidentally, your 36 year old isn't exercising his right not to vote, the government is prohibiting him from voting b/c he didn't fulfill a government created voting requirment. Huge difference)

Minnesotans typically have the highest voter turnout in the country. Last presidential election, over 70% of eligible voters voted. That's remarkable. Over 500,000 of those voters were people who registered to vote on election day. Voter ID will end same day registration as we enjoy it. Instead some sort of provincial balloting method will be created. Voter ID isn't just affecting old people in nursing homes, it'll also affect MN servicemen and women, students, and victims of domestic abuse.

And what would voter ID try and fix? Voter impersonation. Not voter fraud. The only thing voter ID would try and fight change is me attempting to vote in two different locations under two different names. Something that just doesn't happen (and we've been voting without photo IDs for hundreds of years). And to all that, voter ID will require municipalities to raise property taxes to pay for the new voting system - estimates range from 30-50 million.

That's just it. On one side, we have the small government advocates calling for more government regulation. On the other, we have the big government advocates calling for the status quo (less government regulation). It's this duality in American politics that I find maddening. Voter ID is going to fix so few problems that I just don't see any upside in doing it and I see significant downside in trying. BTW, I would have been able to vote in ONE presidential election (out of the four I've voted in thus far) because I was college age and moved around constantly during two elections (as do most people in their late teens and early 20s) and had just moved out of state for the third.

It's a solution in search of a problem. Since I tend to fall on the side of smaller government, I'm going to vote "no" on every useless proposal I see on the ballot (I'd love to see my record on prop ballot measures... it must be overwhelmingly negative to the tune of 90% or more "no"). We need less stupid laws, not more.